Is chivalry sexist? Is it charming and romantic? Is it the mark of a gentleman, or is it outdated? Before we can even begin to answer these questions, we probably need to define what chivalry is.

The loosely-formal concept of chivalry goes back to the 12th and 13th Centuries, and arose as a code of conduct among the medieval knights of the era. It arguably goes back even further, but it was not codified until the late 12th Century. There were at one stage three main ‘branches’ of the concept:

1. Duties to fellow countrymen and to fellow Christians. Protection of the weak and poor, mercy towards others, and being prepared to give one’s life in service of their feudal lord or for the poor and needy.
2. Duties to God. Once again, this involved protecting the weak and innocent, but included protecting the honour of the Church, being generous, and fighting for good over evil.
3. Duties to Women. Knights would serve their lady, and be gentle and gracious to her and to all women.

Of all these elements, the one that is perhaps most associated with modern concepts of chivalry is duties to women. To be chivalrous is to be gracious towards women, to hold open doors for them, to pay for meals, and even to escort them across the street (depending on how far you wish to take the concept). Romantic chivalry or courtly love is perhaps best considered to be an off-shoot of the original idea of chivalry, albeit one that is now the ‘go-to’ version when people think of chivalry.

Romantic chivalry historically enabled lovers to express their deep spiritual, emotional bond, without necessarily outright stating it. Sometimes this was due to societal pressures, and others, it was an expression of courtship. Whilst there is the notion that chivalrous, courtly love is not associated with sexual love, some of the early, courtly writings carry erotic undertones.

The rise of the Suffragette’s movement in the early 20th Century clashed with traditional concepts of chivalry. It can be argued that treating women as delicate creatures was a form of sexism; women were considered (in some quarters) as too sensitive for roles in politics and public life. They were revered, in a way, elevated to a pedestal, but also kept there so they could be admired. In essence, the argument was that chivalry was superficially nice, but it reduced women to objects of desire, as opposed to people with their own hopes and dreams. The gestures of escorting a lady down the street, holding open doors, paying for everything… were these grand romantic acts, or suggestive that a woman was largely incapable of functioning without a man at her side?

As a result of the rising tide of equality, chivalry appeared to die a quiet death. Alongside the rise of the Suffragettes, the notion that chivalry disproportionately shielded women from danger (and thus implied men were more disposable) also rose. This also damaged the view of chivalry as a virtuous practice, at least in terms of how to treat women, though as with all things, there are nuances. In the modern world, there are some women who are offended by these apparent gentlemanly gestures, and others who consider it romantic and kind.

Tied up to this is the idea of a gentleman. What is now seen as gentlemanly behaviour, as opposed to sexist behaviour? The lines keep moving, and I’ll confess to not quite knowing what is or is not the ‘right’ way to behave. Generally speaking, it will boil down to a case-by-case basis, so to speak. After all, as is the case with so many things, and as alluded to, people are not monolithic.

What about you, dear reader? What do you consider to be the line between noble, kind, behaviour, and a faintly patronising attitude? Let me know!

Please follow and like us:

2

0

20